Media Coverage of COVID -19

[Bantamzen]

So, there are lots of questions, and answers would be nice. But many of those answers aren't going to come quickly or clearly, and we need to accept that those answers will be shaded, not black/white. Personally, I find the rigid certainties of the extremists wearying and depressing; neither allow for nuance or the possibility that other views are out there and presented in good faith.

Conversely some people find your rigid determination to get black & white answers before relaxing restrictions depressing, in some ways you are a data extremist waiting for evidence in the numbers that the risk has gone. Sadly this just isn't possible, especially when infection numbers will continue to wax & wain continually going forward. However, knowing that I sound like a broken record here, we cannot wait for definitive proof through data.

I as you know am of the opinion that we have over-extended & over-egged restrictions, and are storing up more damage for the future than the virus would ever do, both economically & physically. You've brought nothing to the table that even for a fleeting moment has made me consider a change of position, with yours being fundamentally that we cannot move forward until the data says 'no risk'.

 

[kez19]

"The media" are lazy, because humans are lazy. They - we - get stuck in ruts and frequently don't actively seek different answers. That's not about it being done for a reason, but that journalists and editors are following in the groove of an existing story, and will do so until another story breaks that draws their attention and focus.

It's very easy to dismiss the "MSM" and focus on their failings, but if we stop at the likes of the BBC homepage, we miss a hell of a lot that is out there. There are good reporters out there who provide good commentary - I'm a Times reader, and have been impressed by Tom Whipple (their science correspondent) and his ability to draw out some of the underlying science; others will prefer other journalists. Other, less visible but also influential journalism is in weekly magazines like the Economist or some of the newer news websites - I've started seeing Tortoise News and seen some good stuff. Finally here are also interesting commentaries on other social media from people with reasonable insight - I find Meaghan Kall and James Ward pretty interesting on the data and modelling, while Christopher Snowdon is quite a bracing read when it comes to some of the nonsense from Covid denialists like Cummins.

But in all of this, the lack of definitive answers is frequently part of the challenge. We need to go back to the government's line that they're "following the science". That science is rapidly evolving, as understanding and facts change, while science can't answer value judgements.

So, there are lots of questions, and answers would be nice. But many of those answers aren't going to come quickly or clearly, and we need to accept that those answers will be shaded, not black/white. Personally, I find the rigid certainties of the extremists wearying and depressing; neither allow for nuance or the possibility that other views are out there and presented in good faith.

Why should I ever have faith in the BBC? (in general UK media), they have shown their true colours throughout this.

Whilst I get things may not be as black and white but isn’t that the point of the media? To me to some degree the media have been given a carrot and told to look the other way, then when things come to light it’s suddenly the blank look of we didn’t see this coming when in fact and quite possibly did.

As for governments and following the science how much was fiction and what was fact? I wouldn’t say the likes of Ferguson or Devi changing minds on say lockdowns, to me it speaks they knew the damage this would cause but are able to jump ship before the worst comes to the forefront but still I bet when that part happens the likes of the BBC will drop them quietly (it’s predictable).

As I said before why all the negativity then during this? I haven’t read or seen much in positive news regardless or is that the point to wear the human spirit that far down? The media ie BBC championed how quick the vaccine was but then started turning against it?

Now for me it speaks in two ways, one - was it that quick that it took media by surprise?
two - or does it look like something else afoot for the vaccine so they turn that positive into a negative?

I am sorry, I got vaccinated (been a skeptic from the outset) but I still think something doesn’t add up, as with the wheel of fortune variants and the media wetting themselves over it makes me think otherwise, until politicians and media and even SAGE act like grown ups and have adult conversations then until that day comes I’ll remain as skeptic as I will ever be

 

[NorthKent1989]

"The media" are lazy, because humans are lazy. They - we - get stuck in ruts and frequently don't actively seek different answers. That's not about it being done for a reason, but that journalists and editors are following in the groove of an existing story, and will do so until another story breaks that draws their attention and focus.

It's very easy to dismiss the "MSM" and focus on their failings, but if we stop at the likes of the BBC homepage, we miss a hell of a lot that is out there. There are good reporters out there who provide good commentary - I'm a Times reader, and have been impressed by Tom Whipple (their science correspondent) and his ability to draw out some of the underlying science; others will prefer other journalists. Other, less visible but also influential journalism is in weekly magazines like the Economist or some of the newer news websites - I've started seeing Tortoise News and seen some good stuff. Finally here are also interesting commentaries on other social media from people with reasonable insight - I find Meaghan Kall and James Ward pretty interesting on the data and modelling, while Christopher Snowdon is quite a bracing read when it comes to some of the nonsense from Covid denialists like Cummins.

But in all of this, the lack of definitive answers is frequently part of the challenge. We need to go back to the government's line that they're "following the science". That science is rapidly evolving, as understanding and facts change, while science can't answer value judgements.

So, there are lots of questions, and answers would be nice. But many of those answers aren't going to come quickly or clearly, and we need to accept that those answers will be shaded, not black/white. Personally, I find the rigid certainties of the extremists wearying and depressing; neither allow for nuance or the possibility that other views are out there and presented in good faith.

The media has done nothing but erode people’s trust in them this year, they have their agenda and that is to break people during this pandemic, whether it’s mentally or financially, but they contributed to this mess we will find ourselves in post Covid.

You’re weary of so called extremists? First of all what constitutes an extremist in your book? Someone who doesn’t agree with your opinion? Someone who is rightfully concerned about their livelihoods or mental health? Second of all I’m pretty weary with those who continue to back this authoritarian government to the line, I’m weary of those who expect others to give up their lives because they’re scared, I’m weary of seeing youngsters having their education disrupted and set back years in development, I’m weary of seeing loved ones suffer from their mental health and me being helpless to do anything to help because my own mental health is in the toilet, so I think it’s fair to say that we’re all weary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2021 ==

Why should I ever have faith in the BBC? (in general UK media), they have shown their true colours throughout this.

Whilst I get things may not be as black and white but isn’t that the point of the media? To me to some degree the media have been given a carrot and told to look the other way, then when things come to light it’s suddenly the blank look of we didn’t see this coming when in fact and quite possibly did.

As for governments and following the science how much was fiction and what was fact? I wouldn’t say the likes of Ferguson or Devi changing minds on say lockdowns, to me it speaks they knew the damage this would cause but are able to jump ship before the worst comes to the forefront but still I bet when that part happens the likes of the BBC will drop them quietly (it’s predictable).

As I said before why all the negativity then during this? I haven’t read or seen much in positive news regardless or is that the point to wear the human spirit that far down? The media ie BBC championed how quick the vaccine was but then started turning against it?

Now for me it speaks in two ways, one - was it that quick that it took media by surprise?
two - or does it look like something else afoot for the vaccine so they turn that positive into a negative?

I am sorry, I got vaccinated (been a skeptic from the outset) but I still think something doesn’t add up, as with the wheel of fortune variants and the media wetting themselves over it makes me think otherwise, until politicians and media and even SAGE act like grown ups and have adult conversations then until that day comes I’ll remain as skeptic as I will ever be

Don’t blame you for being sceptical, I’m honestly wondering what the next variant will be and where it’ll come from, I want to have hope that July 19th will happen but the government are clearly reluctant to gives us back our freedoms, that wasn’t there’s to take away in the first place.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The media has done nothing but erode people’s trust in them this year, they have their agenda and that is to break people during this pandemic, whether it’s mentally or financially, but they contributed to this mess we will find ourselves in post Covid.

Surely the (commercial) media's agenda, to the most part, has been to do whatever they consider will drive revenue (or whatever other metric they are being measured by). Can't see a wider master plan than that, but I'm receptive to any genuine evidence to the contrary!

 

[MikeWM]

The media has done nothing but erode people’s trust in them this year, they have their agenda and that is to break people during this pandemic, whether it’s mentally or financially, but they contributed to this mess we will find ourselves in post Covid.

The media haven't been 'fit for purpose' for at least a few years now, probably longer. Their coverage of the Skripal affair, of the Douma 'chemical attack', of the 'anti-semitism' in the Labour party, and indeed their reporting on Donald Trump and Joe Biden (and to perhaps a lesser extent Brexit), have all been utterly and lamentably poor.

In many respects the Covid issue has brought this unfortunate trend to a sharp and obvious point, as it has many others.

A free society needs a strong independent investigative press. Frankly, we no longer appear to have that, and that is very concerning. Even Private Eye, which was one of the last 'mainstream' bastions of investigative journalism, has now become irrelevant (after reading it regularly for the last 25 years, I didn't renew my subscription last summer and can't say I've missed it since).

 

[kez19]

The media has done nothing but erode people’s trust in them this year, they have their agenda and that is to break people during this pandemic, whether it’s mentally or financially, but they contributed to this mess we will find ourselves in post Covid.

You’re weary of so called extremists? First of all what constitutes an extremist in your book? Someone who doesn’t agree with your opinion? Someone who is rightfully concerned about their livelihoods or mental health? Second of all I’m pretty weary with those who continue to back this authoritarian government to the line, I’m weary of those who expect others to give up their lives because they’re scared, I’m weary of seeing youngsters having their education disrupted and set back years in development, I’m weary of seeing loved ones suffer from their mental health and me being helpless to do anything to help because my own mental health is in the toilet, so I think it’s fair to say that we’re all weary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2021 ==



Don’t blame you for being sceptical, I’m honestly wondering what the next variant will be and where it’ll come from, I want to have hope that July 19th will happen but the government are clearly reluctant to gives us back our freedoms, that wasn’t there’s to take away in the first place.

It’s the goalposts that have done it for me, look promise you this, then nah take it away, then if it’s not that it’s then blaming certain parts of society either being vaccinated or not (same with distance/masks etc), (media then fuels fire to see fit their own agenda), then sits back and watches it crumble but still no comeback on either parties though (strange that but if it is a pleb you are responsible for actions etc), I can’t be mistaken again that it is indeed one rule for us/them?

 

[Bantamzen]

It’s the goalposts that have done it for me, look promise you this, then nah take it away, then if it’s not that it’s then blaming certain parts of society either being vaccinated or not (same with distance/masks etc), (media then fuels fire to see fit their own agenda), then sits back and watches it crumble but still no comeback on either parties though (strange that but if it is a pleb you are responsible for actions etc), I can’t be mistaken again that it is indeed one rule for us/them?

Meanwhile, in the Dept of Health.....

Matt Hancock affair: Health secretary apologises for breaking social distancing guidelines

Boris Johnson stands by the health secretary after calls for him to be sacked over affair with colleague.

www.bbc.co.uk

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has admitted breaking social distancing rules after pictures of him kissing an aide were published in a newspaper.
He said he had "let people down" after photos emerged of him with Gina Coladangelo - whom he appointed - and was "very sorry".
Labour urged the PM to sack Mr Hancock, calling his position "untenable".
But the health secretary said he would stay "focused" on dealing with the pandemic.
The Sun reported that its pictures of Mr Hancock and Ms Coladangelo, both of whom are married with children, had been taken inside the Department of Health in early May.
Labour Party chairwoman Annaliese Dodds said: "If Matt Hancock has been secretly having a relationship with an adviser in his office - whom he personally appointed to a taxpayer-funded role - it is a blatant abuse of power and a clear conflict of interest.
"The charge sheet against Matt Hancock includes wasting taxpayers' money, leaving care homes exposed and now being accused of breaking his own Covid rules.
"His position is hopelessly untenable. Boris Johnson should sack him."
A government spokesman said Ms Coladangelo's appointment had been "made in the usual way" and had "followed correct procedure".
And, in a statement, Mr Hancock, a 42-year-old father of three, said: "I accept that I breached the social distancing guidance in these circumstances. I have let people down and am very sorry.
"I remain focused on working to get the country out of this pandemic, and would be grateful for privacy for my family on this personal matter."
The health secretary cancelled a visit to a Covid vaccination centre at Newmarket Racecourse, in his West Suffolk constituency, on Friday morning, a few hours after the Sun's story was published.
Ms Coladangelo, who has known the health secretary since they were at Oxford University together, was made a non-executive director of the Department of Health last September.
The role comes with a £15,000 salary and involves 15-to-20 days of work per year.
The Liberal Democrats called on Mr Hancock to resign and accused him of "hypocrisy" over social distancing.
Health spokeswoman Munira Wilson said: "He was telling families not to hug loved ones, while doing whatever he liked in the workplace."
Mr Hancock's ministerial colleagues rallied around him, with International Development Secretary Truss told the BBC: "[Mr Hancock] does have my support [in cabinet]. This is a personal matter."
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think there has been for a long time a complete difference between what people do in their job... and what they do in their personal lives."
Ms Coladangelo, 43, is married to Oliver Bonas founder Oliver Tress and Mr Hancock's wife of 15 years, Martha, is an osteopath.
The government's guidelines for England on hugging friends who are not part of your household states that people can exercise "personal judgement", but should remain cautious.
In May last year, epidemiologist Professor Neil Ferguson resigned from the government's scientific advisory group (SAGE) after it emerged he had broken lockdown rules when a woman he was reportedly in a relationship with visited his home.
Mr Hancock called Prof Ferguson's actions "extraordinary", adding that social distancing rules were "there for everyone" and were "deadly serious".
On Friday, Labour's First Minister of Wales Mark Drakeford said Mr Hancock had been "quick to condemn" Prof Ferguson, adding: "Certainly here in Wales I always expect the whole of our ministerial team to observe the rules we expect other people to observe.
"We can't make laws for other people and not be willing to abide by them yourself."

 

[NorthKent1989]

Surely the (commercial) media's agenda, to the most part, has been to do whatever they consider will drive revenue (or whatever other metric they are being measured by). Can't see a wider master plan than that, but I'm receptive to any genuine evidence to the contrary!

They’ve helped crank up the fear factor from 0 to 1000 throughout all of this, not reporting on those who’ve recovered successfully from Covid, only reporting on deaths from Covid or rising cases, ignoring other broken aspects of our society which will be even more broken once this is all done and dusted (mental health crisis, economic hardship etc), stoked divisions in a society that is already divided

It’s the goalposts that have done it for me, look promise you this, then nah take it away, then if it’s not that it’s then blaming certain parts of society either being vaccinated or not (same with distance/masks etc), (media then fuels fire to see fit their own agenda), then sits back and watches it crumble but still no comeback on either parties though (strange that but if it is a pleb you are responsible for actions etc), I can’t be mistaken again that it is indeed one rule for us/them?

Boris going back on June 21st I think has snapped a lot of people.

You’re spot on about the media pouring petrol on the flames because that’s what they have done, rather than being investigative and being for the people all the newspapers from the Daily Mail to the Guardian have become nothing more than mouthpieces for the government.

And as for any opposition from the Labour Party, I’m starting to get confused about which MP belongs to which party, because right now I feel this is the nearest we’ve come to having a one party state, unlike the United States, Republican states opened up completely with zero restrictions and with great success, they’ve accepted that Covid is something we have to live with from here on out, they’ve been clear that vaccines are a personal choice, there’s a clear opposing party in America, I’m not one to praise the Americans often but kudos to Texas and Florida.

What we’ve got over here is the elite telling us plebs what to do and what not to do but they can do anything they please.

Meanwhile, in the Dept of Health.....

Matt Hancock affair: Health secretary apologises for breaking social distancing guidelines

Boris Johnson stands by the health secretary after calls for him to be sacked over affair with colleague.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is yet another example of the political classes attitude of “do as we say not as we do!” Matt Hancock needs to go, he’s a disgrace.

 

[nlogax]

They’ve helped crank up the fear factor from 0 to 1000 throughout all of this, not reporting on those who’ve recovered successfully from Covid, only reporting on deaths from Covid or rising cases, ignoring other broken aspects of our society which will be even more broken once this is all done and dusted (mental health crisis, economic hardship etc), stoked divisions in a society that is already divided

All this for sure, but as a side effect of seeing to increase revenues or / and driving viewership. That’s the ultimate aim here. Make more money or collect more viewers, damn the collective sanity of the audience.

 

[kez19]

All this for sure, but as a side effect of seeing to increase revenues or / and driving viewership. That’s the ultimate aim here. Make more money or collect more viewers, damn the collective sanity of the audience.

I’ll throw this, does anyone remember the film “rollerball” whilst it was basically a brutal ball game, it’s what drew viewing figures up, whilst what I say may not be in exact context but it does feel that is where the media has headed - clickbaiting or on the other it’s viewing figures

Just a minor edit in terms of Rollerball - I had seen the updated version think was out in late 00s not the original

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2021 ==

They’ve helped crank up the fear factor from 0 to 1000 throughout all of this, not reporting on those who’ve recovered successfully from Covid, only reporting on deaths from Covid or rising cases, ignoring other broken aspects of our society which will be even more broken once this is all done and dusted (mental health crisis, economic hardship etc), stoked divisions in a society that is already divided



Boris going back on June 21st I think has snapped a lot of people.

You’re spot on about the media pouring petrol on the flames because that’s what they have done, rather than being investigative and being for the people all the newspapers from the Daily Mail to the Guardian have become nothing more than mouthpieces for the government.

And as for any opposition from the Labour Party, I’m starting to get confused about which MP belongs to which party, because right now I feel this is the nearest we’ve come to having a one party state, unlike the United States, Republican states opened up completely with zero restrictions and with great success, they’ve accepted that Covid is something we have to live with from here on out, they’ve been clear that vaccines are a personal choice, there’s a clear opposing party in America, I’m not one to praise the Americans often but kudos to Texas and Florida.

What we’ve got over here is the elite telling us plebs what to do and what not to do but they can do anything they please.



This is yet another example of the political classes attitude of “do as we say not as we do!” Matt Hancock needs to go, he’s a disgrace.

The media cause the damage without any comeback, OFCOM have allowed it (or possibly Boris really but still have a backbone OFCOM)

For me I’m still wanting to know when the night time economy is opening in Scotland and when I can see my GP - this is under Sturgeons watch too (I know people have a right against Boris but I’m the same with Sturgeon)

As for opposition parties they are as useless as a chocolate teapot (same up north but agree)

As for Matt Hancock doing a Bill Clinton well they have something in common who knew? Again agree it’s always one for us and them

 

[duncanp]

A smidgen of light-hearted amusement for the group

Some more light hearted amusement, in the light of the "revelations" this morning about the Health Secretary.

There are loads more, including "Hands, Face, Embrace" as the new government slogan, as well as countless jokes about "Hancocks Half Hour"

 

[nlogax]

Just a minor edit in terms of Rollerball - I had seen the updated version think was out in late 00s not the

As an aside I'd highly recommend watching the original version! The shadowy corporations are less concerned about ratings and more about trying to ram home the supposed futility of individual effort in society. If I had more coffee I could work that back into something more relevant for a Covid discussion thread..

As for Matt Hancock doing a Bill Clinton well they have something in common who knew? Again agree it’s always one for us and them

For a millisecond today I was gobsmacked that Hancock's apology was for 'breaking social distancing guidelines'. Then I remembered this is the norm for politics in this day and age.

 

[PHILIPE]

This is yet another example of the political classes attitude of “do as we say not as we do!” Matt Hancock needs to go, he’s a disgrace.

As expected, he has the support of the Prime Minister. Just heard on the news

 

[westv]

As expected, he has the support of the Prime Minister. Just heard on the news

So he'll be gone by this time next week then.

 

[35B]

The media haven't been 'fit for purpose' for at least a few years now, probably longer. Their coverage of the Skripal affair, of the Douma 'chemical attack', of the 'anti-semitism' in the Labour party, and indeed their reporting on Donald Trump and Joe Biden (and to perhaps a lesser extent Brexit), have all been utterly and lamentably poor.

In many respects the Covid issue has brought this unfortunate trend to a sharp and obvious point, as it has many others.

A free society needs a strong independent investigative press. Frankly, we no longer appear to have that, and that is very concerning. Even Private Eye, which was one of the last 'mainstream' bastions of investigative journalism, has now become irrelevant (after reading it regularly for the last 25 years, I didn't renew my subscription last summer and can't say I've missed it since).

I'd like to know where you feel there has been decent reporting. I'm also concerned about the quality of the press, and regard the reporting from Private Eye as generally pretty good - especially their "In the Back" reporting. There's plenty to criticise in the media, but I'm surprised that you pick out either Douma or the Skripals as examples of poor reporting.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2021 ==

Why should I ever have faith in the BBC? (in general UK media), they have shown their true colours throughout this.

Whilst I get things may not be as black and white but isn’t that the point of the media? To me to some degree the media have been given a carrot and told to look the other way, then when things come to light it’s suddenly the blank look of we didn’t see this coming when in fact and quite possibly did.

As for governments and following the science how much was fiction and what was fact? I wouldn’t say the likes of Ferguson or Devi changing minds on say lockdowns, to me it speaks they knew the damage this would cause but are able to jump ship before the worst comes to the forefront but still I bet when that part happens the likes of the BBC will drop them quietly (it’s predictable).

As I said before why all the negativity then during this? I haven’t read or seen much in positive news regardless or is that the point to wear the human spirit that far down? The media ie BBC championed how quick the vaccine was but then started turning against it?

Now for me it speaks in two ways, one - was it that quick that it took media by surprise?
two - or does it look like something else afoot for the vaccine so they turn that positive into a negative?

I am sorry, I got vaccinated (been a skeptic from the outset) but I still think something doesn’t add up, as with the wheel of fortune variants and the media wetting themselves over it makes me think otherwise, until politicians and media and even SAGE act like grown ups and have adult conversations then until that day comes I’ll remain as skeptic as I will ever be

Years ago, a prominent newsreader was lambasted for arguing that there should be more positive news. Some of what he argued was wrong, but he captured something important - "news" tends to be about what is different, and that is more often than not bad. It's been a fact for the 30+ years I've been consuming the news, and I doubt it'll ever change.

It's your right to remain a skeptic, but I'd strongly suggest that you combine your scepticism with actually reading and considering what other sources are saying. As, taking your last paragraph at face value, you come across as not wanting to believe what the science is saying, and instead waiting for someone to say what you want to hear. There's a lot out there about the science, and the key thing I take from what I see is that the scientific understandings are developing and changing rapidly. The media react to what happens - they don't make it.

 

[yorksrob]

There might be many reasons for Hancock to resign, but over an affair ? It would be practically compulsory in the French Government !

 

[kristiang85]

There might be many reasons for Hancock to resign, but over an affair ? It would be practically compulsory in the French Government !

It's the optics of conducting an affair whilst still under rules - implemented by his office - which said people in different households shouldn't be hugging, etc. It's the hypocrasy that people are annoyed about.

 

[Eyersey468]

I didn't expect Boris to sack Hancock especially given the precedent of him backing Cummings.

 

[yorksrob]

It's the optics of conducting an affair whilst still under rules - implemented by his office - which said people in different households shouldn't be hugging, etc. It's the hypocrasy that people are annoyed about.

Yes, I suppose it depends on whether he conducted the affair through the period in question (I imagine it might have been difficult to bubble without his wife knowing !).

If the affair was conducted during lockdown, hopefully it will serve to undermine that policy.

 

[LAX54]

It's the optics of conducting an affair whilst still under rules - implemented by his office - which said people in different households shouldn't be hugging, etc. It's the hypocrasy that people are annoyed about.

who leaked the CCTV picture ?

 

[MikeWM]

I'd like to know where you feel there has been decent reporting.

Well, for example, as a until-fairly-recently Guardian reader, I'd say some of the best stories they've done over the past decade or so were the Ian Tomlinson story, Wikileaks and Edward Snowden. But in all those cases the story was given them - they didn't do any work to find them out from first principles.

I'm also concerned about the quality of the press, and regard the reporting from Private Eye as generally pretty good - especially their "In the Back" reporting.

They are still good on specifics (eg. miscarriages of justice) but I find the tone has descended into the irritating. Their approach to things like Douma (attacking Peter Hitchens for asking questions rather than asking questions themselves) and Labour 'anti-semitism' were no more probing than the rest of the press. Their approach to Covid was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

I no longer expect them to do the sort of specials they used to write that questioned official narratives when they saw there were clear issues. Such as their work on foot and mouth (another great Neil Ferguson triumph!) or Lockerbie. Perhaps that is the key change.

There's plenty to criticise in the media, but I'm surprised that you pick out either Douma or the Skripals as examples of poor reporting.

Both are blatant and recent examples of 'printing what they are told' and not asking real questions, which to me is the essence of good reporting. A trend that we now see fully played out with Covid and the media coverage and the 'questions' asked at the briefings. The media now seem to spend most of their time being a tool of the powerful to use as an echo-chamber rather than trying to hold them to account.

I don't want to go too deeply into the rabbit-hole of specifics, but for quick examples:

Craig Murray did some of the best and most readable work on the Skripals story, see eg.

The Holes In The Official Skripal Story
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/07/the-holes-in-the-official-skripal-story/
or
Ten Points I Just Can't Believe About The Official Skripal Narrative
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...believe-about-the-official-skripal-narrative/

I'm not saying all of what is there are great or important problems, but a good deal of it raise very valid points. Why didn't the media ask these questions - why is it left up to a blogger (who, incidentally, due to being the only person to report properly on the Alex Salmond farce of a trial, is set to go to prison shortly) to point out that the official story has serious issues?

As for Douma, look at what the late Robert Fisk wrote about it. Or look at what Peter Hitchens has been saying about it fairly constantly since it happened. There are very good reasons to at least have serious doubt that this was a chemical attack perpetrated by Assad's side, yet the entire media decided it was exactly that the moment it happened, and almost no meaningful questions were ever asked.

 

[duncanp]

There might be many reasons for Hancock to resign, but over an affair ? It would be practically compulsory in the French Government !

It is not so much him having an affair that matters, but the fact that he, as the Health Secretary , did not follow the social distancing rules that he himself expected everyone else to follow.

Hands, face, space indeed - more like Hands, Face, Embrace

The next cover of Private Eye should be interesting.

 

[yorksrob]

It is not so much him having an affair that matters, but the fact that he, as the Health Secretary , did not follow the social distancing rules that he himself expected everyone else to follow.

Hands, face, space indeed - more like Hands, Face, Embrace

The next cover of Private Eye should be interesting.

Yes, I lose track of what restrictions were in place when, but if canoodling indoors was a no no at the time then fair play.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I’ve lately been recalling the Marie Antoinette quote:

“Let them eat cake”

If ever there’s been a time when the political classes and the rich have broken their own rules and not care about it, it’s now.

I’m hoping these continual own goals keep happening, then Boris can’t come up with another variant as an excuse to not give us back our freedoms.

 

[35B]

I didn't expect Boris to sack Hancock especially given the precedent of him backing Cummings.

Let alone Boris being the last person to be able to be disgusted at someone having an extra-marital affair

 

[kristiang85]

Yes, I suppose it depends on whether he conducted the affair through the period in question (I imagine it might have been difficult to bubble without his wife knowing !).

If the affair was conducted during lockdown, hopefully it will serve to undermine that policy.

Well the picture was from 6th May, apparently.

Somebody had been sitting on it for a while.

 

[35B]

Well, for example, as a until-fairly-recently Guardian reader, I'd say some of the best stories they've done over the past decade or so were the Ian Tomlinson story, Wikileaks and Edward Snowden. But in all those cases the story was given them - they didn't do any work to find them out from first principles.



They are still good on specifics (eg. miscarriages of justice) but I find the tone has descended into the irritating. Their approach to things like Douma (attacking Peter Hitchens for asking questions rather than asking questions themselves) and Labour 'anti-semitism' were no more probing than the rest of the press. Their approach to Covid was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

I no longer expect them to do the sort of specials they used to write that questioned official narratives when they saw there were clear issues. Such as their work on foot and mouth (another great Neil Ferguson triumph!) or Lockerbie. Perhaps that is the key change.



Both are blatant and recent examples of 'printing what they are told' and not asking real questions, which to me is the essence of good reporting. A trend that we now see fully played out with Covid and the media coverage and the 'questions' asked at the briefings. The media now seem to spend most of their time being a tool of the powerful to use as an echo-chamber rather than trying to hold them to account.

I don't want to go too deeply into the rabbit-hole of specifics, but for quick examples:

Craig Murray did some of the best and most readable work on the Skripals story, see eg.

The Holes In The Official Skripal Story
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/07/the-holes-in-the-official-skripal-story/
or
Ten Points I Just Can't Believe About The Official Skripal Narrative
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...believe-about-the-official-skripal-narrative/

I'm not saying all of what is there are great or important problems, but a good deal of it raise very valid points. Why didn't the media ask these questions - why is it left up to a blogger (who, incidentally, due to being the only person to report properly on the Alex Salmond farce of a trial, is set to go to prison shortly) to point out that the official story has serious issues?

As for Douma, look at what the late Robert Fisk wrote about it. Or look at what Peter Hitchens has been saying about it fairly constantly since it happened. There are very good reasons to at least have serious doubt that this was a chemical attack perpetrated by Assad's side, yet the entire media decided it was exactly that the moment it happened, and almost no meaningful questions were ever asked.

Thank you for that answer. Unfortunately, the unholy trinity of Hitchens, Murray and Fisk that you cite do nothing to convince me that the mainstream press were wrong in any of the cases you cite. All are much lauded by their supporters, yet as idols have feet of clay; the commentary of all three has been highly partisan and Hitchens (at least) is a past master at JAQing off. Similarly, while Glenn Greenwald did good work around Snowden, my confidence in that reporting is not boosted by the way that both Greenwald and Snowden have come out on the ultra-libertarian right.

It's also worth noting that Murray's risk of imprisonment is not to do with his reporting the trial of Salmond, but his willingness to flout the law granting anonymity to those alleging that they are the victim of sexual abuse. Those rights and protections around the court process exist for a reason, and Murray's behaviour is something - regardless of the merits of the Salmond case - that should be of concern to all who believe in a fair trial process.

 

[yorksrob]

Well the picture was from 6th May, apparently.

Somebody had been sitting on it for a while.

As I said earlier, fingers crossed it is a nail in the coffin for the unjustifiable policy of lockdown.

 

[duncanp]

As I said earlier, fingers crossed it is a nail in the coffin for the unjustifiable policy of lockdown.

There is supposed to be a "review" next week to determine whether the rules can be eased from 5th July, rather than 19th July.

I wonder if Boris Johnson will take the opportunity to have a minor relaxation of the rules from July 5th, pending their abolition on July 19th, just to take everyone's mind off Matt Hancock and "Hands, Face, Embrace".

 

[MikeWM]

Thank you for that answer. Unfortunately, the unholy trinity of Hitchens, Murray and Fisk that you cite do nothing to convince me that the mainstream press were wrong in any of the cases you cite. All are much lauded by their supporters, yet as idols have feet of clay; the commentary of all three has been highly partisan and Hitchens (at least) is a past master at JAQing off. Similarly, while Glenn Greenwald did good work around Snowden, my confidence in that reporting is not boosted by the way that both Greenwald and Snowden have come out on the ultra-libertarian right.

I don't agree with everything they say or do either. Murray and Hitchens, while both very different people, both have an interesting and eclectic set of views, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. I'm less familiar with the personal views of Fisk, but I've found him to be a very good reporter on the whole.

Though it appears that you're shooting the messenger here, rather than engaging with the message. To be blunt, I think all three of these people have done significantly better and more interesting reporting of late than those in the 'mainstream' media. At least they ask questions and scrutinise details.

It's also worth noting that Murray's risk of imprisonment is not to do with his reporting the trial of Salmond, but his willingness to flout the law granting anonymity to those alleging that they are the victim of sexual abuse. Those rights and protections around the court process exist for a reason, and Murray's behaviour is something - regardless of the merits of the Salmond case - that should be of concern to all who believe in a fair trial process.

We're going rather off-topic here, though that's my fault. All I'll say on that is that it is rather debateable, at best, whether he flouted the law in any such regard. I read his blog entries of the trial at the time, and I didn't come away any the wiser as to who the allegations were being made by.